NI moves towards mobile phone-free schools as major pilot reveals mixed results

Inset: Education Minister Paul Givan

Schools across Northern Ireland are being told to become mobile phone-free during the school day as Education Minister Paul Givan launches a 12-week consultation on whether the approach should ultimately be backed by legislation.

Strengthened Department of Education guidance published today makes clear that pupils should not routinely have access to personal mobile phones during the school day, although individual schools will retain flexibility over how restrictions are implemented.

The move follows a major independent evaluation of a lockable smartphone pouch pilot which found substantially less phone use in schools and strong reports from teachers of better focus, fewer phone-related incidents and increased face-to-face interaction — but considerably more mixed results when researchers examined pupil responses and measurable outcomes.

The King’s College London study found no statistically significant improvement in its main measures of pupil mental health. Student-reported general classroom disruption increased significantly, while reported on-time homework completion fell — although researchers warn that limitations in how the study was conducted mean those changes cannot be attributed to the phone restrictions themselves.

Pupils themselves were also markedly less enthusiastic than teachers, with researchers describing their overall views as “mixed-to-critical” and recording attempts to circumvent restrictions using fake phones, damaged pouches and other workarounds.

The distinction is important. Many of the strongest positive findings around classroom focus, behaviour and relationships came from teachers’ experiences reported through the qualitative research, while the quantitative pupil outcomes presented a more complicated picture.

Crucially, King’s College London recommends creating smartphone-free learning environments — not requiring every Northern Ireland school to use lockable pouches.

Minister accepts recommendation for phone-free schools

Mr Givan said he has accepted the report’s recommendation that the Department establish a clearer expectation that schools should restrict mobile phones.

“The evidence from the Kings College London report and wider research indicates that unrestricted access to mobile phones during the school day can have a detrimental impact on learning, behaviour, wellbeing and safeguarding,” the Minister said.

“The independent evaluation carried out by King’s College London found that schools participating in the pilot experienced improvements in classroom focus, engagement, behaviour, safeguarding and social interaction. Teachers reported fewer disruptions, stronger relationships and a more positive school environment overall.”

The Department has now moved beyond its previous position by publishing strengthened guidance stating that schools should be phone-free.

Schools will not, however, be required to use lockable pouches. They can determine how restrictions operate locally, provided the approach prevents routine pupil access to personal mobile phones during the school day.

Exceptions will remain possible for medical and safeguarding reasons and for pupils with disabilities or special educational needs.

That flexibility closely reflects the King’s College London recommendation that government should establish a consistent objective without imposing one restriction model on every school. Researchers also recommend considering different arrangements for older pupils.

What actually happened when phones were locked away?

The clearest quantitative success of the pilot was also its most immediate objective: pupils spent considerably less time using smartphones at school.

After adjusting for factors including gender, school year and deprivation, pupils reported spending an average 26.15 fewer minutes on their phones during the school day following implementation of the policy.

That reduction was statistically significant.

However, time spent talking to friends at lunchtime showed no meaningful quantitative change.

The qualitative findings painted a particularly positive picture from the staff perspective.

Teachers widely reported improvements in attention, productivity and engagement, while also describing fewer phone-related confrontations and better relationships with pupils.

By the second term, most teachers were reporting reductions in phone-related behavioural incidents, including cyberbullying, filming, pastoral incidents and disputes originating outside school being brought into the classroom through smartphones.

There were signs too that removing phones changed how young people interacted.

Teachers reported increased face-to-face socialising and new friendships forming, although researchers found little evidence of increased participation in extracurricular activities.

One teacher described seeing “some friendships blossom that you’ve never seen before”, adding that pupils previously hidden behind their phones were “flourishing and finding their path, finding their tribe.”

Another teacher summed up the impact in their classroom: “I myself have noticed a massive difference in teaching and learning, but they’re more engaged.”

Teachers felt safer without the risk of being filmed

One of the less obvious findings concerned teachers themselves.

While staff were reluctant to claim the policy had already produced clear improvements in pupils’ mental health, teachers reported a more obvious improvement in their own wellbeing.

Some described feeling safer and more confident because pupils were less able to secretly photograph or film them and potentially share the material online.

By the second term, enforcement was also becoming easier.

Instead of repeatedly challenging pupils over phones, some teachers described a broader “no see, no hear” standard: regardless of whether every pupil was physically using their pouch correctly, seeing or hearing a phone meant the rules had been breached.

Researchers identified a wider cultural shift as the pilot became embedded. Phones increasingly ceased to be regarded as acceptable to use during school, compliance improved and fewer parental concerns were being raised.

Pupils were considerably less convinced

The experience reported by pupils was much more mixed.

Researchers describe students’ overall views as “mixed-to-critical”, with many calling the pouch policy inconvenient, unnecessary, strict or a waste of time and money.

Students suggested alternatives including keeping phones away during lessons but allowing access at break and lunchtime, storing devices in school bags, relaxing restrictions for senior pupils and teaching young people to regulate their own smartphone use. l

And some pupils found creative ways around the system.

One student aged 16–18 told researchers:

“Most people they don’t actually put their real phone in. They just put their second fake phone in and they’re on their phones, so [the policy] it’s not really doing anything.”

Researchers heard accounts of pouches being deliberately broken or manipulated, pupils failing to lock them properly and second phones being used as decoys.

Younger pupils were generally perceived as more accepting of the restrictions than older students.

That difference is one reason the researchers recommend considering age-differentiated arrangements, balancing restrictions for older pupils against independent study, responsible technology use and preparation for life after school.

No significant improvement in pupil mental health

The study’s findings on wellbeing warrant particular caution.

Researchers found no statistically significant change in the principal measure of pupils’ emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Anxiety scores fell slightly, as did depression scores, but neither reduction was statistically significant.

Measures of problematic smartphone use and social media addiction also showed no meaningful change.

That is notably more cautious than any suggestion that removing phones has already been demonstrated by this pilot to improve children’s mental health.

Teachers themselves told researchers it remained too early to assess the effect confidently, with one saying:

“It’s hard to measure. Are we not still quite early days on this, again, to see a marked increase in like happiness in any group or in a child.”

Some pupils also experienced the restriction differently.

Teachers reported initial anxiety among some children who were accustomed to using their phones for reassurance or emotional regulation, including pupils with autism, with individual alternatives having to be put in place.

Among pupils with a neurodivergent diagnosis or special educational needs, reductions in anxiety and depression were somewhat larger than in the overall population, but again were not statistically significant.

Researchers said the subgroup was too small to draw firm conclusions and called for further research.

The report consequently recommends reasonable adjustments for pupils with medical, SEN or care needs, including individual arrangements where smartphone access is required for safety, wellbeing or learning.

An unexpected rise in classroom disruption

Perhaps the most surprising quantitative finding concerned classroom behaviour.

Before the policy, 32.8% of respondents reported general classroom disruption at least once a week.

Afterwards, that stood at 59%.

The increase was statistically significant.

At the same time, the proportion reporting that they themselves had been involved in a disruption involving a smartphone fell from 12.3% to 9.3%, although that reduction was not statistically significant.

The apparently contradictory findings matter.

Teachers reported that some phone-related disruption disappeared only to be replaced by other behaviour, including increased talking. The report concludes that while general disruption increased, the evidence suggested less of that disruption was being caused by smartphones.

However, researchers strongly caution against concluding that removing phones caused the overall increase in disruption.

The pre-policy questionnaire related to the autumn term while post-policy questionnaires were completed during spring, when pupil engagement and behaviour can differ.

The make-up of respondents also changed substantially. Boys represented just 3.3% of respondents pre-policy compared with 23.8% afterwards. Researchers adjusted their analysis for gender but said the very low representation of boys initially could not be fully offset.

Homework completion also went in the wrong direction

Another unexpected result concerned homework.

Reported on-time homework completion fell from 87.8% before the policy to 78.5% afterwards.

The result narrowly missed the conventional threshold for statistical significance.

Among the smaller SEN/neurodivergent group, on-time homework completion fell from 87.8% to 70.3%.

That result was statistically significant, but researchers explicitly warn it was confounded by the time of year at which the comparisons were made.

The findings highlight another issue repeatedly raised by pupils and teachers: smartphones were not solely being used for entertainment.

Phones had also become tools for homework, research, school communication and practical classroom activities.

Researchers therefore recommend that restrictions be accompanied by access to alternative technology such as laptops, iPads and computers where pupils need them for classwork, homework or research.

Did pupils simply use their phones more after school?

The research also raises an important distinction between making the school day phone-free and reducing young people’s overall smartphone use.

Raw questionnaire figures showed average weekday smartphone use increasing from 298 minutes to 312 minutes — from just under five hours to more than five hours — despite reported smartphone use during school falling.

Some pupils described compensating for restricted access by spending more time on their phones afterwards.

One pupil aged 14–16 said:

“I find myself going on my phone more… out of school because I’ve been missing everything that’s gone on when I wasn’t there.”

Another older student said:

“If you aren’t allowed to do something, that makes you want to do it more.”

Some pupils reported that increased after-school phone use affected homework and revision.

Researchers concluded that some pupils continue to use smartphones excessively regardless of school restrictions and could benefit from separate interventions focused on problematic use.

Broken pouches, fake phones and queues at home time

Practical problems were another consistent feature of the pilot.

Pupils and staff reported damaged or deliberately broken pouches, replacement costs, inadequate unlocking stations and queues forming at the end of the school day.

Students raised concerns about pouch durability and alleged damage to phones, although researchers could not determine the extent to which reported pouch breakages resulted from poor durability or deliberate damage.

Schools themselves adopted markedly different approaches.

Some issued individual pouches across most or all year groups while others restricted them to younger pupils.

One school allowed Years 13 and 14 to access phones during study periods because homework was set through an online platform.

Sanctions varied too, ranging from confiscation and detention to parent collection. One participating school operated a tiered system under which repeated breaches could eventually result in a phone being retained overnight.

The report recommends that schools using pouches carefully consider the number and location of unlocking stations, staff supervision, staggered release times and priority unlocking for pupils needing to catch buses.

Department’s own survey reveals widespread concern

Alongside the King’s College London evaluation, the Department of Education has published findings from its own survey of schools which suggest concerns about mobile phones extend well beyond those involved in the pouch pilot.

According to the Department:

• 73% of respondents believed the overall impact of mobile phones during the school day was negative;

• 71% reported a significant impact on pupil wellbeing;

• more than 90% linked phones to behavioural issues;

• 83% cited online conflict spilling into school;

• 77% identified safeguarding concerns; and

• 71% highlighted cyberbullying.

Mr Givan said:

“As a parent, I understand why many families want their children to have a phone. But I also know that every parent wants their child to be able to concentrate in class, feel safe in school and make the very most of their education.

“Every child deserves to come to school ready to learn, free from unnecessary distractions, and able to build positive relationships, develop confidence and achieve their full potential.

“Schools across Northern Ireland have told us they are dealing daily with the consequences of excessive mobile phone use, including distraction from learning, cyberbullying, online conflict, safeguarding concerns and impacts on wellbeing.”

The Minister said that while many schools already have robust policies, “we now need a stronger and more consistent approach across our education system.”

Could phone-free schools become law?

The next question is whether Northern Ireland’s move towards phone-free schools should be reinforced through legislation.

Mr Givan has today launched a 12-week public consultation on legislative change to support mobile phone-free schools.

No final decision on legislation has yet been taken.

“I am also today launching a 12-week public consultation on bringing forward legislation change to support mobile phone-free schools,” the Minister said.

“Before any final decisions are taken, it is important that parents, pupils, teachers and school leaders have an opportunity to have their say and I would therefore encourage anyone with an interest to respond to the consultation.

“My aim is simple. I want schools to be places where children and young people can focus on learning, enjoy healthy friendships and thrive in a safe and supportive environment.

“This is not about being anti-technology. It is about getting the balance right and ensuring that children and young people can benefit from the opportunities technology offers while protecting them from its risks.”

What the study can — and cannot — tell us

The King’s College London evaluation provides significant evidence about how smartphone restrictions operate in real schools, but it was not a controlled experiment capable of proving that the policy caused every change recorded.

Nine schools participated in the pilot, with eight engaging with King’s College London for the evaluation.

Importantly, the pupils responding before and after implementation were not necessarily the same young people.

For most schools, the initial questionnaire was also administered after the smartphone policy had already begun, meaning pupils were asked retrospectively to describe how they had felt before its introduction.

Researchers acknowledge that this creates the potential for recall bias.

One school dropped out after the first questionnaire while others were only introduced by the second questionnaire, and there were no control schools against which the results could be compared.

The report therefore recommends a larger controlled study over a longer period to produce more robust evidence on educational attainment, attendance, exclusions, mental health, long-term behavioural effects and the impact on disadvantaged and SEN pupils.

School-level figures suggested reductions in detentions, exclusions and parent visits after the smartphone pilot was introduced, but the researchers explicitly describe that data as sparse and say robust conclusions cannot yet be drawn from it.

The distinction is important as Northern Ireland considers legislation.

The evaluation provides strong evidence that restrictions can successfully remove much of the smartphone use from the school day, alongside substantial teacher testimony about improved focus, relationships, safeguarding and social interaction.

But it does not demonstrate across-the-board improvements in pupil mental health, behaviour or educational outcomes.

The researchers’ own conclusion reflects that nuance: schools should seek to create smartphone-free learning environments, but future policy should prioritise flexible implementation, age-appropriate approaches, digital self-regulation education and investment in alternative learning technology.

Have your say

Parents, pupils, teachers, school leaders and anyone else with an interest can now respond to the Department of Education consultation, ‘Measures to Support Mobile Phone-Free Schools in Northern Ireland’.

The consultation opened today, 27 August 2026, and will run for 12 weeks.

Consultation - Get Involved

For schools, the immediate change is strengthened guidance establishing a clear expectation of a mobile phone-free school day.

Whether that approach should ultimately be supported through legislation — and what that legislation should look like — is now being put to parents, pupils, teachers, school leaders and the wider public.